1. Thought I'd fish out this
artwork from the recent federal campaign - I like to call it the "S.S. Harper" - and it's taking on a whole new meaning these days...heh...:) That Harper quote sounds so foolish now...I thought Noah didn't need to panic?
2. What the brilliant tactician may have done was
push the opposition firmly toward toppling the Conservatives when, prior to the last 24-48 hours, it really wasn't on the table. Nothing was concrete enough to crystallize it.
It's now being openly discussed. Reporters seem awestruck at the sight, reinforcing its reality (Hebert and Gregg last night). Conservatives are described as "
thunderstruck." And even if it doesn't happen over this economic update, i.e., Harper backs down, the likelihood of it happening on some other vote, perhaps the coming "early" budget has markedly increased. Harper has galvanized the opposition by startling them with the lengths he's willing to go to. This is purely a guess...but I'm thinking he had no idea that talk of coalitions would actually come to fruition.
3. A reader prompted me to look back to the 1985 accord between Bob Rae and David Peterson as precedent for a viable scenario at the moment. So here are a few items to consider. First, here's a
video clip featuring an interview with a young Rae that was referenced on
Cam Holmstrom's site that gives you a pretty good sense of some aspects of the deal that was made between Rae and Peterson at that time. Second, there was a prescient
column in the Toronto Star on October 13th, the day before the last election, on scenarios for the opposition that's quite helpful to review at this moment (and remember, it was written eons ago in our news cycles, so some of it is sooo dated, already). It discusses the 1985 accord and relates it to the situation on October 13th when another minority result was imminent:
By the time of the 1985 Tory toppling, Rae was determined to be more than a footnote in history: He agreed to support Peterson as premier only after the Liberals signed a two-year pact not to call an election, while passing an agreed-upon list of mutually acceptable reforms. The famous "accord" made Peterson premier but it also garnered a popularity for Rae's New Democrats that put him in the premier's office in 1990.
Now white-haired, a convert to Liberalism, a former rival for the leadership won by Stéphane Dion, Rae could yet play a key part in the aftermath of tomorrow's election, one all the polls say will deliver Canadians their third minority government in a row.
...
If the economy continues to slide, an opposition coalition based on some guarantee of stability could possibly look very attractive to worried Canadians. The Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc have burning issues to address together: climate change, the war in Afghanistan, restoring arts funding, and strengthening of social supports in times of trouble.
In Ontario, the activist government dictated by the agreed-upon agenda in the accord proved broadly popular. Negotiated between the two parties out of common planks in their election platforms – a ban on doctors' extra-billing, equal pay for work of equal value, 10,000 social housing starts, a spills bill for polluters – the accord was impervious to the powerful doctor and business lobbies. It had been signed: Peterson could not waver.
It is difficult to see how, based on platforms and ideologies, Harper could attract a stable governing partner. It is easier to imagine the Liberals, NDP and Bloc agreeing on a common action plan.
Interestingly, Duceppe recently swallowed his spleen about Dion, the architect of the Clarity Act, and observed he might be willing to enter into an agreement with the Liberals on some issues, such as the environment – in Quebec's interests, of course. Duceppe has no doubt already ruled out a coalition (sharing cabinet seats) with a federalist party, but he might see merit in an Ontario-style accord.
Following a defeat of Harper's government in the Commons, the opposition parties could offer written proofs to Governor General Michaëlle Jean that they have a stable agreement to support Dion as prime minister for a certain period (it was two years in Ontario) in return for swift government action on their common agenda.
...
...it would be tricky – particularly with three prickly partners instead of the two in the Ontario experiment.
But it is a tried-and-true way to offer election-weary Canadians a period of stability, and a common agenda put together out of the platforms for which most of the electorate voted.
Issues that would have to be worked out include whether this would be a coalition, where cabinet seats would be shared, or an accord, where as in Ontario, one party would run the government and the other(s) would share power through the provisions of the accord on issues, process, etc.
4. There's also the not so little issue of the Liberal leadership. As referenced in that
Globe report last night, there are kinks to work out:
The party almost certainly would refuse to go into another election under Mr. Dion, with the likely result that the mantle of interim leadership would fall on Michael Ignatieff, who has the most support from the parliamentary caucus and influential backroom Liberals.
But that would upset supporters of MPs Bob Rae and Dominic LeBlanc, who are campaigning for the Liberal leadership and who were outraged Thursday when key Ignatieff organizer Steven MacKinnon used the proposed Harper legislation to send out an e-mail fundraising appeal for Mr. Ignatieff under the heading “Save Canada's Democracy – Stephen Harper is trying to undermine Canada's fair and open political system. Take action now!”
From the
CP, there's this:
Under the Liberal constitution, the party's national executive, in consultation with caucus, has emergency power to appoint a successor should the leader resign or die.
Ignatieff, who has the lion's share of caucus and executive support, would likely become leader if that route were followed.
Given that there is a leadership race in progress, this is going to be a tricky manoeuvre. As
Canwest reports, if Jean Chretien is involved, as they say, it looks like it's serious business. Personally, I'm not comfortable with installing one of them as the way to go. Would the situation constitute an emergency? Could a third party be chosen by the caucus to run a coalition until the leadership could be worked out? As a reader suggests, if there is an accord entered into with the other parties, for say, 2 years, then why would one of the candidates have to be installed right now? Wait a few months after a shortened leadership campaign, perhaps. I'm just not comfortable with obliterating the race in its entirety as a result of some agreement. Not a good precedent.
5. Other notes...
what the NY Times readers are reading about Harper's injection of the political financing question into the economic update and the prospect of a coalition government:
“It’s pure political gimmickry,” said C. E. S. Franks, a professor emeritus of political science at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario.
...
Professor Franks said that the comparative youth of the current Parliament could mean that the governor general, Michaëlle Jean, might turn to the opposition parties to form a government if the Conservative plan was defeated. The opposition would, he added, probably have to publicly sign a formal agreement to support any resulting government for a fixed period.
6. A startling
revelation from former Mulroney official, L. Ian MacDonald:
Had the Conservatives been returned with a majority in last month’s election they had every intention of cutting off public financing of political parties, and they would had the means and the muscle to do it over the howls of opposition protests. Now they’re doing so anyway, touting it as part of Ottawa tightening its spending in yesterday’s economic update. (emphasis added)
Every intention of doing so, despite this major public policy change not having been raised at all during the election. Just unbelievable. Well, actually
believable from this crowd. But quite the revelation.
7. And finally, this
Globe editorial that gets it right:
By destabilizing their own government, the Conservatives have placed Canada at a competitive disadvantage against other states. Through gratuitous partisanship, they have turned an economic crisis into a political one.
They should withdraw their cynical attempt to rewrite election rules and concentrate on what matters: the world economic crisis.
